Qestion to EC re.: possible future UNION between EO & RC

[milidrag]

Hi,

In case of any future union between the so-called Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church, what is your perception about the differences between what are now your so-called sui iuris Churches in communion with Rome and what would those that unate be?

Would those that unite be the same in future as you are now?

Would they differ somehow? If yes, how? Please elaborate.

Thanks.

 

[Cecilianus]

If the Orthodox embrace union with Rome, they will not put up with Latinizations - and they will insist that we drop them as well.

Hopefully, our “sui juris” Church will be re-absorbed back into our Mother Churches and the spectacle of “uniatism” and Latinizations put to an end.

 

[SonCatcher]

If the Orthodox embrace union with Rome, they will not put up with Latinizations - and they will insist that we drop them as well.

Hopefully, our “sui juris” Church will be re-absorbed back into our Mother Churches and the spectacle of “uniatism” and Latinizations put to an end.

That seems reasonable to this Latin. (I’m not participating in the poll as I understand it geared toward Eastern Catholics)

 

[Garyjohn2]

What do you mean by latinizations?

 

[Cecilianus]

What do you mean by latinizations?

Abuses in the Liturgy meant to imitate Roman Catholic praxis rather than our own Eastern tradition.

For example, tearing down iconostases so you can see the priest and the altar, putting statues in churches, pews, shortening the Liturgy to an hour or an hour and a half, praying the Rosary or other Latin devotions before Liturgy rather than Orthros, putting the Stations of the Cross on the inside of a church, omitting Eastern customs like the antidoron, speaking the Liturgy rather than chanting it, kneeling during Communion, omitting the Sign of the Cross (Roman Catholics make it once or twice during Mass, while Eastern Christians make it dozens or hundreds of times), having Liturgy on the night before the feast or multiple times a day, confessionals rather than having the sacrament administered before the iconostasis, using the Latin formula for absolution, the watering down or abolition of fasting, the extra-liturgical adoption of Latin devotions like to Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, the adoption of Latin theological language and canon law, etc.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Abuses in the Liturgy meant to imitate Roman Catholic praxis rather than our own Eastern tradition.

For example, tearing down iconostases so you can see the priest and the altar, putting statues in churches, pews, shortening the Liturgy to an hour or an hour and a half, praying the Rosary or other Latin devotions before Liturgy rather than Orthros, putting the Stations of the Cross on the inside of a church, omitting Eastern customs like the antidoron, speaking the Liturgy rather than chanting it, kneeling during Communion, omitting the Sign of the Cross (Roman Catholics make it once or twice during Mass, while Eastern Christians make it dozens or hundreds of times), having Liturgy on the night before the feast or multiple times a day, confessionals rather than having the sacrament administered before the iconostasis, the Latin formula for absolution, etc.

Oooh, I see. That makes sense. I think these traditions should stay too, although it might be ok to introduce some latin ones (Roman catholic churches sometimes have icons, for example).

 

[theistgal]

Pews are not a “latinization” – most Orthodox churches I’ve visited have them.

 

[Cecilianus]

Oooh, I see. That makes sense. I think these traditions should stay too, although it might be ok to introduce some latin ones (Roman catholic churches sometimes have icons, for example).

Icons were the common inheritance of both East and West before the schism, and were preserved in countries that converted from the Eastern Rite to the West - Poland and southern Italy. But the Popes since Pius XII have urged us to maintain the integrity of our tradition, and have even excommunicated certain groups of priests in Ukraine (e.g., the Society of St. Josaphat Kuntseyvitch) that have clung to these accretions in rebellion to their bishop.

Usually when Latin traditions are adopted in the East, they are done so in a way inconsistent with the rest of the symbolism of the Liturgy and spirituality, and they are out of place in a way that they’re not when done in the West. Likewise, I think the West would be wise to get rid of many Eastern practices they’ve pulled out of their organic context and poorly adopted (like standing during Communion).

 

[Cecilianus]

Pews are not a “latinization” – most Orthodox churches I’ve visited have them.

And are criticized by their own Orthodox parishioners for being “Protestantizations”.

 

[theistgal]

And are criticized by their own Orthodox parishioners for being “Protestantizations”.

Yes … and they are the same ones who would criticize YOU for describing yourself as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

 

[Cecilianus]

In America, Latinizations/Protestantizations/Romanizations are just as common among the Orthodox (Russians and Serbians usually excepted) as among the Eastern Catholics. In Europe, I think they are more common among the Catholics in Slovakia due to influence from the surrounding Roman Catholics and in Ukraine due to conflict with the Orthodox. Russia’s style of iconography popular at the time of Peter the Great - the “Italian” style - is also an abuse due to Peter’s Westernizations, but the traditional style is coming back.

 

[Cecilianus]

Yes … and they are the same ones who would criticize YOU for describing yourself as “Orthodox in communion with Rome”.

Yep! Proud to continue the Uniate menace and flaunt my apostate canoodling with Rome.

 

[Cecilianus]

More seriously, though, if the Orthodox Churches were to come back in union with Rome, they would not start calling themselves “Eastern Catholics” (though the term would not be inappropriate) - they would quite literally be Orthodox in communion with Rome. One does not lose his Orthodoxy by recognizing it in the See of Peter.

I’m not waiting for them. Charity is a duty imposed by God, who prayed that we “may all be one” and built His Church upon Peter.

 

[theistgal]

Yep! Proud to continue the Uniate menace and flaunt my apostate canoodling with Rome.

Flaunt whatever you want, as long as you acknowledge that not all EC’s share your concerns or opinions.

And that some of us find the U word quite offensive (though i should add that I don’t think you meant it that way).

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I voted that in the event of reunion the EO will differ from what the EC are currently, but I cast that vote with hesitation. I hesitate primarily because it is difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint what exactly the ECs are now. On the official level Rome wants us to be everything that the Orthodox are while at the same time remaining in communion with Rome. The official policy is that Eastern Catholics (of any tradition [Byzantine, Coptic, Maronite, Assyrian, etc.]) maintain their authentic liturgical, theological, spiritual, and canonical heritage which has been handed down to them from Apostolic times. In action, however, Rome has not always handled it well when we have kept and/or restored those parts of our heritage that we had perhaps abandoned.

Apart from that, however, there are often differences of opinion from one sui juris Church to another. These opinions range anywhere from the very “Orthodox” policies of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church to the more Latinizing policies (usually mentalities) of say the Ruthenians or the Maronites (policies that I’ve heard others rail about on these and other forums). You would also have to deal with the mentalities of individual Eastern and Oriental Catholics to really see the full extent (if any) of Latinization.

Finally one must also deal with the fact that the Orthodox themselves are not wholly united on things that many consider Latinizations. I’ve heard of many Orthodox who pray the Latin Rosary and the Way of the Cross, I’ve also heard of Orthodox, both lay and hierarchs, who accept the Immaculate Conception and the filioque. Of course these things are not bad in themselves, and the two mentioned doctrinal issues have really been shown to be non-issues, but nevertheless there are Orthodox who explicitly affirm them.

Apart from this, the Orthodox are not united on the issue of any sort of primacy (I’m not just referring to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome). I’ve heard many Orthodox opinions ranging from the Bishop having the final say, the Synod having the final say, a Metropolitan or Patriarch having the final say, etc. I’ve even heard Orthodox turn either the Patriarch of Moscow or the Ecumenical Patriarch into pretty much a Byzantine version of the (Absolute Petrine) Pope, where he can willy-nilly interfere in the affairs of a particular Church as his whims lead him.

So in the final analysis I don’t think either option provided will really be what the Orthodox will look like in the event of reunion (or even the Eastern Catholic Churches for that matter). I’d say things will look pretty much like what they looked like in the early Church. In essence we will all cleave to the same Faith which will be sufficient to keep us united, but we will quibble over “theologoumena” until our Saviour comes again and shuts us up. This, by the way, is pretty much how the Melkites have been functioning since Vatican I, and especially since the advent of the Cairo Circle, our participation at Vatican II, and the famed Zoghby Initiative. We have our share of quibbles with Rome and with Roman Catholics, we have often been called very uncharitable names by our fellow Catholics, but despite it all we have proudly held fast to our traditions. Incidentally this has also been the case in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church at least since the times of + Andrej Sheptytsky, another personal hero of mine.

 

[milidrag]

…I’ve also heard of Orthodox, both lay and hierarchs, who accept the Immaculate Conception and the filioque. …

Interesting. Can you name one such a h(eres)ierarch and affirm that you heard him professing filioque, nor a hearsay about it?

…Of course these things are not bad in themselves,…

I beg to differ.

…and the two mentioned doctrinal issues have really been shown to be non-issues,…

When? Where? How?

Anyway, thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut and effort to write it so comprehensively.

 

[Apotheoun]

And are criticized by their own Orthodox parishioners for being “Protestantizations”.

That is a fairly accurate description to use when talking about pews. After all, pews only became common in the West after the Protestant Reformation.

P.S. - I have been to six Eastern Orthodox parishes in the SF Bay Area and none of them had pews, although the Antiochian Church I visited did have some folding chairs, and there were benches along some of the walls in the other Churches.

 

[milidrag]

… did have some folding chairs, and there were benches along some of the walls in the other Churches.

I’m not sure I speak about exactly the same, but most (all?) of the Churches (needless to say, Orthodox) I’ve been into do have folding chairs along the walls. And some of these are quite old.

 

[Apotheoun]

The option that I would have voted for is not present, so I have taken it upon myself to add it:

(3) The Eastern Orthodox Churches will be no different from what they are now when Rome finally enters into communion with them.

 

[Apotheoun]

I’m not sure I speak about exactly the same, but most (all?) of the Churches (needless to say, Orthodox) I’ve been into do have folding chairs along the walls. And some of these are quite old.

The Antiochian Church’s folding chairs were rather new, but so was the Church building; while the movable benches at Holy Virgin Cathedral in San Francisco may have been original to the structure, which means that they were probably around 30 or 40 years old.